It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FEMA Admits to UFO's

page: 10
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
relax people just relax , its only a training book that will teach you how to act in case of disasters including a UFO crash because they have the experience, in fact they have dealt with it in the past several times, haven't they ?




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
When you have highly qualified writers who are senior members of the Fire Service and who also actually work directly for FEMA calling the manual in question "FEMAs Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", then you can be consider that pretty good evidence.
What writers are you talking about?


Why would you doubt it? Especially as you also have the researchers of the Cometa report and of the History channel and of ABC news all coming to exactly he same conclusion and all calling it exactly the same thing?
I would doubt it because none of those people represent FEMA.


With all due respect, seeing as far more qualified and knowledgeable people - with regard to this specific issue - definitely consider it a "FEMA manual", then it doesn't really matter what criteria you claim would satisfy you, if any. The evidence is there. There is no real reason for you to dispute it.
The problem is that I do not know if those people consider it a "FEMA manual", they may have used that name because all people use, I have seen it happen many times, and you probably have also.

And I am not really disputing the evidence, I am doubting that can be considered evidence (unless that is the meaning of disputing the evidence, "disputing" is not used like that in Portuguese).


I already answered these questions earlier in this thread. It would be in there because it was a real scenario firefighters might have to face, and, if I recall correctly, already have, according to the author. If it was removed (I haven't seen evidence of this, as yet, I'm still looking) it was likely because it garnered too much media attention.
And if it's not a real FEMA book? Why do you think it was removed (if it was really removed)?


I like it as it is, I'm afraid. It's eye catching. It caught your eye anyway
That is true, it caught my eye, so stop "abducting" my eye, if you please.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


did you see the Fema document Art?

just got home so im catching up

gonna read back a couple pages,,,,,,,



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
What do you mean just one piece of evidence?
I mean that the only evidence that has been presented that this is a FEMA book (endorsed, approved or whatever) is that people call it "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control".


You or anyone else has not presented any evidence. You have not done anything but ask questions.
I have not done anything more on this thread because there is nothing I can do on this thread to try to know the truth besides asking questions.

What else can I do here?


Anyone can ask questions ad infinitum if you remove reason and logic.
Anyone can ask questions ad infinitum and anyone can state what they want ad infinitum also, neither of those actions will get us closer to the truth.

I asked more than once for a direct link between this book and FEMA because nobody answered me, just that.


You or nobody else on this thread has presented evidence that says anything different.
OK, if you consider that people calling it the "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" is evidence that this book is from FEMA, do you consider that the book is called "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" is evidence that this book is not from FEMA?


People don't have to bend over backwards to try to find more evidence so that you and others can keep asking for evidence.
I am not expecting that, that is why I am making my own investigation.


ABC news did a segment on the book and there wouldn't be a segment if FEMA would have said the book is not connected to us and it's just 2 firefighters.
How do you know that? Were you one of the people from ABC news or do you have evidence from ABC news that the reason they made that segment was because FEMA said that the book was approved or endorsed by FEMA?

Don't you think that a "no comment" from FEMA would be enough for ABC to do that segment? Or that ABC could have not even asked FEMA?


People have presented evidence and you and others have presented nothing.
I am working on it.



You think if you ask questions that's being skeptical.

It's not being skeptical if you exclude reason and logic.
If you don't consider the lack of references to FEMA in the book itself as evidence, I don't see what else can I find (with links and videos) that you can consider as evidence.

But I am trying.


Edited because something strange happened to the end of the post.

[edit on 15/4/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

What writers are you talking about?


I don't mean to be rude, but this is, I think, the fourth time I have referenced and linked this in as many pages. I wish people would look at the evidence for themselves before responding. OK, moan over. Here it is again. This is the article where the writer makes it clear that as far as he is concerned the manual in question is a FEMA document. Just search for 'FEMA' within the article. Then check the guys credentials at the bottom of the article, including his work specifically for FEMA, and tell me that this is not a comment made by someone who is clearly an expert in this field.

I think this also answers most of your subsequent questions and objections.


And if it's not a real FEMA book? Why do you think it was removed (if it was really removed)?


Same reason, because it gained too much media and public attention, although I think that there would be little chance of having it removed if FEMA had no say in the matter, and it was truly a fully independent book, as some have tried to claim, seeing as the authors were obviously quite adamant about the validity and need for the UFO chapter.


That is true, it caught my eye, so stop "abducting" my eye, if you please.


LOL. Sorry, now I have abducted you with it, I intend to probe you with it's content!



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


To continue, this is also why I have no doubt that if followed up - if you contact FEMA etc - then it will all be hushed up and played down now, due to the media attention and FEMAs desire to avoid that. Suddenly a book which experts openly acknowledged as being a FEMA manual will now be denied as being a FEMA manual, and even the authors, after writing so explicitly and boldly in the manual, will probably huff and puff and say "Well...yes but", because the Big Boys at FEMA will have told them to play it down and not implicate FEMA etc. Standard procedure, I'm afraid. And some here, determined to deny, will lap it up. But what we have is the evidence before 'counter measures' and denials are introduced to minimize the effects of the media exposure of this manual. The removing of that chapter - if it happened, still awaiting evidence - would clealrly be part of that.

For instance, look here.

At the bottom of the article the author asks a straight question, specifically regarding the manual we are discussing, and actually doesn't get a straight answer, although the intent to absolutely deny is crystal clear, as it is throughout the article. When the spotlight is put on them, all such agencies want to deny interest or protocols for dealing with UFOs and ET. Standard procedure. Privately, we know it is a completely different picture. There has been abundant evidence to establish that fact.



"I asked if FEMA had officially approved the 1993 version of The Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control, as was reported in the January 1995 issue of Omni Magazine. But Goodman insisted, speaking very slowly so I wouldn't miss a word, "FEMA does not now or never has as far as preparedness, response and recovery, or any other arena, dealt with the subject of UFOs."


He doesn't answer the direct question, he doesn't say "No we did not approve the book", but instead falls back on a rote, blanket statement of denial. Standard procedure. Hardly a surprise. Strange then that a FEMA and Fire Service insider and expert like Peter W. Blaich, when discussing subjects a million miles from ETs and UFOs, should be quite clear that the manual is definitely a FEMA document. Such official denials by agencies have been debunked many times buy their own declassified documents and by testimony from insiders at the very top levels of these agencies. So we can be forgiven by taking them with more than a pinch of salt, especially when we have evidence to the contrary, as in this case.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Exactly.

That's not skepticism that's being absurd.

If you can't come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence then in the end that's your problem.

There's nothing else that can be offered. If you think everyone is lying and you have not presented any evidence that counters the evidence presented that's just silly.

You can keep asking for evidence but it's meaningless because evidence was presented.

If you have evidence that counters the evidence that has been presented then let's see it.

Just asking questions because you think that's being skeptical is nonsense.

Present some evidence and I could come to the conclusion that it's not from FEMA.

I think it's silly to say it's not from FEMA when no evidence has been presented to support that assertion.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
5 mins of thinking about this.... this is what came up....


well just more evidence that the NWO isnt what we all think it is.... although it may well be what we all think....
NWO might be our awaking into the resource based real world...
release of Alien Technology.... sooner or later they will have to acknowledge that UFOs are real and there are aliens....
do you suppose NWO is the real order instead of a New One... ? The Age of Knowledge.... is upon us... and now the Govt wants to take over the world and stomp out religion and 6.2 billion people .... put in place this communist UN is the new world order ... Satan is a Alien Overload ? ......
Its either, Welcome Humans or were a bunch of dead humans.... think about it.... how can they keep it a secret that they plan on killing over half of us in what 5 months... with avian bird flu... institute a nation wide quarantine (Martial Law) and start culling the flock... just like 1913 all over again.... take the flu shot - you got the Flu.... and died (is the current conspiracy behind 1913 Pandemic) -- just who do you trust .... Trust No One....

or maybe "how to serve man" the UFO's are going to the grocery store and Humans will be in those Plastic coffins for easy shipping to planet X... gosh .... what is coming this Summer.... death and missery .... or UFO's and a New World....

I bet its death and destruction.... but who knows... Murder is still punishible by any law ... and bush is still free to do as he pleases...
Life is/was too good to be true in America, this summer we will know if the good life will continue or disappear for ever.... and forever is a very long time.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I found a description online of the History Channel's documentary which discusses this manual. The History Channels own synopsis is as follows:




"It's all hush-hush as we track a secretive global paper trail, delving into government plans on how to deal with other-planet visitors. Searching historical records, we find that protocols are in place--from the U.S. military's JANAP-146 reporting requirements to France's Cometa files, from Chapter 13 of the FEMA Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control titled "Enemy Attack and UFO Potential", to a now-repealed federal law titled "Extraterrestrial Exposure".


And a description of the content :


"The documentary shows an American disaster control manual that was once used in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Fire Training Academy Open Learning Program. The 1993 manual is called Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control. It contains a shocking chapter about how "first responders" should manage incidents involving UFOs."


If so, this shows that the book was used and disseminated directly by FEMAs training Academy as required reading as part of their programs. That's a direct link to FEMA.

I'm still looking for a video of this program and will provide links and transcripts if I find them. But comparing the History Channel's own explicit synopsis and the description of program content above, it's patently clear that it is absolutely legitimate for people (such as experts like Peter Blaich) to refer to this document as the "FEMA manual", as if it wasn't already based on the other evidence presented.

I think we a re rapidly nearing a an absolutely definitive "case closed" which completely validates the OP and the fact that this manual with it's ET/UFO chapter is rightly referred to as:

"FEMAs Fire Officers Guide to Disaster Control"


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


No, I haven't seen any FEMA document, that was what I was saying.

I must have passed it without seeing it, could you point it to me?

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
www.greatdreams.com...

I hope this is what you are requesting my freind

wasn't hard to find



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
If you can't come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence then in the end that's your problem.
The problem is that you want me to come to what you consider a reasonable conclusion and consider, apparently, all other eventual conclusions as absurd.

If I have a different way of thinking (maybe because I am Portuguese and I do not have the famous mistrust of government related agencies that almost all US citizens appear to have) then it's that way of thinking that makes me start from the beginning, looking first at the book and, not seeing any reference to FEMA, only to "Fire Engineering Books & Videos", it makes me think that this was a private edition, not a FEMA sponsored book.


There's nothing else that can be offered. If you think everyone is lying and you have not presented any evidence that counters the evidence presented that's just silly.
I did not said that everyone is lying (why most people insist that I say things I do not say?), I just said that when people use that name it does not mean that it is the official name, they may just be repeating what they have heard before, people do that constantly, with all types of things.


You can keep asking for evidence but it's meaningless because evidence was presented.
I don't know if you noticed, but I stopped asking some pages back.



If you have evidence that counters the evidence that has been presented then let's see it.

Just asking questions because you think that's being skeptical is nonsense.

Present some evidence and I could come to the conclusion that it's not from FEMA.
Now who is being repetitive?



I think it's silly to say it's not from FEMA when no evidence has been presented to support that assertion.
That is why I did not said it, if you read all my posts I never said that this is not a FEMA book, I asked (but I am not asking again, so please do not answer if I was asking for it) for any official reference because I doubt it, not because I think it impossible or a lie.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I don't want you to come to anything. Rather you reach a conclusion or not doesn't matter.

You are asking a question that has no basis in logic.

All the evidence that has been presented has supported that this is connected to FEMA.

There has been no evidence from you or anyone else that it's not from FEMA, so what are you basing your question on?

If I say I'm 6 feet tall and I show you video and papers that say I'm 6 feet tall and you just keep asking for evidence then it's just silly.

Unless you have evidence that says I'm not 6 feet tall and then there's a basis for the question.

I remember debating you before and you said something about skeptics and asking questions. A skeptic ask questions but they don't abandon reason and logic.

Do you follow every astronomer and look into each observation?
Do you call the guy/girl behind each physics paper to see if they wrote it?

Again, if you have evidence that this is not from FEMA then let's see it. We can weigh it but without a basis for your question it doesn't make sense. You can ask for evidence until your blue in the face. It doesn't matter unless there's counter evidence that shows this is not from FEMA.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


Apparently not.

It looks like someone talking about the book (and a video that may be related to it), but that someone does not look to be any of the book's authors (William M. Kramer and Charles W. Bahme) or someone representing FEMA, and that is what I have been looking for.

But thanks anyway.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Are my posts invisible or something?


Haven't you read this about five posts back? A direct link to FEMA.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
You are asking a question that has no basis in logic.
To me it has, that is why I ask it.


There has been no evidence from you or anyone else that it's not from FEMA, so what are you basing your question on?
The lack of evidence that this is really from FEMA, because, as I said, I haven't seen any reference to that made the book's authors or by someone representing FEMA.


If I say I'm 6 feet tall and I show you video and papers that say I'm 6 feet tall and you just keep asking for evidence then it's just silly.
The problem is that, in this case, and from what I have seen, what is happening is that someone else is saying that you are 6 feet tall, and they show me papers and videos of other people saying you are 6 feet tall, but from a photo of you I see nothing that shows you as being 6 feet tall, so I try to get that information from you (probably the best source) or for the people that measured you.

Why should I trust what other people say when I do not see you as being 6 feet tall on the photo and I can get that information from you?

That is what I have been trying to say, the evidence that I have seen shows that other people say that this is a FEMA manual, the writers never said it (as far as I have seen) and FEMA never said it was an official FEMA book, so I try to get that information either from the authors or from FEMA.


Do you follow every astronomer and look into each observation?
Do you call the guy/girl behind each physics paper to see if they wrote it?
No, I hardly have time to keep up with the posts on ATS, but I try to, but I try to get confirmation of all data for which I see opposing versions and that I find interesting enough to invest my time on.


Again, if you have evidence that this is not from FEMA then let's see it. We can weigh it but without a basis for your question it doesn't make sense. You can ask for evidence until your blue in the face. It doesn't matter unless there's counter evidence that shows this is not from FEMA.
I only asked for evidence on my first two posts, and as I said before, I will post any evidence that I find about it, there is no need for you to repeat that in every post you make.

PS: I will stop posting for some hours, but that is because I am going to sleep (it's 02:13 here in Portugal) and after that I have to go to work, but "I'll be back".



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


What on earth are you talking about?

You have acknowledged the manual as "FEMA guidelines".

You have said you had to study it.

You have seen that a highly experienced member of the Fire Service with FEMA connections calls it "FEMA's "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", as do Cometa and the History channel.

So what on earth is your point?

The evidence is staring your in the face!

Are you now claiming you and fellow firefighters have never heard of the "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control"?

Your only valid claim seems to be that the UFO chapter was there but has since been removed. Fine. lets see some proof. It doesn't change anything regarding what was said above.



Ok now I see I am arguing with a wall. EVERYONE IN THE FIRE SERVICE HAS HEARD OF IT.

They have NOT, NO ONE has ever seen this section about UFO's in the guideline!!

Then you keep telling people the proof that it is by giving a link to a post you made on ATS?!?

Give me a FEMA link anything that states the REAL guideline has this in it. Anything but TELEVISION! OR the Internet! Because in the REAL world of the fire service you are wrong.

I am not talking about someone trying to make a buck like TV. I am talking real life balls in there hands firefighters.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Now you are linking here? www.disaster-resource.com...

How is that proof that FEMA has said anything about how to handle a UFO scene?

We dont work that way. We dont have to have everything spelled out us. We have SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) and guidelines. Every scene is different. They are always a test.

Do you have any idea how many times we have run across horrific accident where we stand there for a while and think, where the hell do I start and how do I fix this? How do I untwist this person from this machine and not paralyze them or kill them?

For one thing the way this UFO handling business they stated in the video is in no way how procedure is worded. Its made up hogwash to sell entertainment.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Transcript of the relevant sections of the History Channel's "UFO FILES: When UFOs Arrive." which demonstrate that it is a FEMA document.

Beginning at 17:40.

"But what is the current policy? Does the U.S. Government have a plan?"

"In terms of preparedness, there are not many documents out there to prepare officials for the possibility of a UFO event taking place. But amazingly there is one such document in the United States. It's called the 'Fire Officers Guide to Disaster Control", and this is a book that's used in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Academy to train Firefighters".

"The second edition of this book came out in 1993 and that book had a chapter on UFOs, explicitly, what would an emergency specialist do in the event of a UFO related crisis or disaster. It's really pretty amazing stuff to go into a book that was written under the FEMA umbrella"

"If there is an event like this the Firefighters and the Police Officers will be the first people on the scene, and they are instructed in this book to get in touch with the military. I don't think that they would be handling it by themselves for too long, but since they are the first ones on the scene it gives some general guidelines."

"It is the one document I think in the United States, that we know about, that indicates a concern that our officials be prepared for such an event taking place. This manual is apparently found in most Fire Houses throughout the country. I have looked into whether the Police Department has a similar manual and I have been told that they don't. The Military has no manuals that we know of like this, I'm sure that they do, that are not made public."


Further details can be found by following the link.

So those who dispute that this manual is a FEMA Document, having been disseminated by them and used in their National Training Academy need to take this matter up with the History Channel and experts like Peter Blaich who state very clearly that it is a FEMA manual. Frankly, there is more than enough evidence in this thread to consider this absolutely "case closed". If such evidence was presented in a skeptic cause it was be considered indisputable. I consider it ridiculous and highly telling that this idea has been resisted so adamantly and baselessly over ten pages, when not a shred of evidence was presented to counter it or to justify why one would even attempt to deny it in the first place.

This manual is rightly called a "FEMA manual" and "FEMAs Fire Officers Guide to Disaster Control".

Any yes, it contained/contains a chapter on how to deal with crashed UFO's and injured Aliens, and more.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Where have FEMA or the people who wrote the book denied that this book was connected to FEMA?

This is not something that was discovered yesterday. It's been around since 1992.

That's why I asked you or anyone else for evidence that it's not from FEMA.

This could have been stopped in 1992 if it wasn't from FEMA with a simple press release that says, "this book is not connected to FEMA."

Again, I ask for evidence that counters the evidence that has been presented. A press release, a video or something.

In the appendix of the book they even list FEMA regional offices and they talk about FEMA. You can read it on google books.
books.google.com...,M1

This story has been around for awhile, so it should be easy to find a press release that denies the story. It has been on the History Channel and a segment on ABC News and in other places.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join